Talk:Tillingbourne Bus Company/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll read this over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article created recently on 17 October 2010

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Images: Captions tend to be rather lengthy, especially for T591 CGT. See WP:Captions. I am also unsure of the need for so many similar images. I understand the use of the lead image, but would like a rationale for the others. As the company was formed in 1924 are there any pictures of older buses - there would be some encyclopaedic value in showing the development of the company livery, or the sorts of buses they used as the company progressed. Are there pictures of the company bus station? A map of the area served? Photos of any of the Trice family? A bus ticket? SilkTork *^YES! 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Cut back the caption a little - should read better now. Re the use of images: the infobox image shows a second-hand vehicle and the inline image one bought new, they illustrate different routes and vehicle types operated and there's five years separating them, so there's probably enough reason to use both. The two images of ex-Tillingbourne vehicles with other companies are slightly less relevant, but again illustrate different types used. At the least, using one in the Legacy section would seem to make sense. Older images would be great, but I can't find much. This site could be helpful but there may be some copyright issues. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Links to Redhill, Chilworth and Ewhurst go to disambiguation pages rather than the appropriate article. SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorted. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• What vehicle(s) did the company use when it was first formed? How many vehicles? When did the garage in Godalming open? What was the company called between 1924 and 1931? Why was it reconstituted in 1931? What form did the new structure take that was different? Could you clarify "the small coaching operation" called Tillingbourne Valley Coaches. "The entire service was taken over in August 1964..." - taken over by whom? We are told the colour of the new livery in 1972 - what was the previous livery? SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Found some info to answer the first two in the book and added it. The Godalming garage seems to be a mistake on my part - checking again, it wasn't owned by the company but by one of its directors, so isn't really worth mentioning. The early structure should also be clearer now - it began as Tillingbourne Valley, and became a limited company Tillingbourne Valley Services in 1931. The coaching operation, which for some reason I hadn't explained properly, was launched in 1931 and split into a separate company in 1933.
  • "The entire service" refers to Tillingbourne taking over operation of all of the Guildford-Peaslake route described in the previous sentence rather than sharing it, but this wasn't clear so I've reworded it. And the original livery (or liveries, as there were two), are now detailed in the history section. Let me know if I missed anything. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Prose is mainly clear, but doesn't flow well. The article is mainly a series of facts rather than integrated and readable prose. It would benefit from a decent copyedit. SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are questions raised by the text, and information is often quite scant, so the article doesn't meet broad coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite possible. Anything in particular? It may be that the book reference offers some info to cover the gaps. Stuff from after 1990 could be harder but I could have a look in some back issues of Buses Magazine. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is quite common for the lead section to initially not meet GA criteria. Most editors think that the lead is an introduction. It should be a mini-article, covering all the main points of the topic. See WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 00:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Expanded a lot. I think it meets the guideline now... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the value of the Related operations section. It could be made clearer why some of these operations are mentioned. Or they could be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Three of the four are directly relevant; Dorking Coaches and Tillingbourne (Metropolitan) were owned by the company, and Tillingbourne Valley Coaches was formed by a split of the main company. We could probably afford to remove Hedgerow Travel if you think it would help.

• There are references, though the bulk of the article is cited to a single source which is not available online, so verifying will be delayed slightly. SilkTork *^YES! 01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the book was pretty all that was available for everything up to about 1990, and it's quite hard to get hold of now, so I guess this could be a problem. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On hold

This is a recent article, and it probably needs more time to develop. There are several issues with the depth of the research, and the selection and presentation of the material. Usually with a minor topic like this, a GA pass is fairly easy to achieve, but the basic information needs to be there. At the moment this article is lacking in detail. There will be other sources on bus companies in the South East, and there may be material in the local library archives. I feel there is a bit of work to be done, and it may be inappropriate to try and rush it into seven days, though I will put this on hold to see what improvements are made in that time. And we can discuss then if it would be better to close this review and give people time and space to develop the article further and nominate again, or if there is a strong possibility that the article will improve enough to meet the GA criteria in a reasonable time-frame. Main targets:

• Copy-edit for readability

• Develop Lead per WP:Lead

• Provide more detail and information

I will contact relevant WikiProjects and contributors. SilkTork *^YES! 01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Development

Very pleasing progress. The lead looks much better. It could do with a bit more development to meet WP:Lead. Incorporate details of the Fleet and Legacy. If there's a section in an article, then a summary of the important points of that section should be in the lead. SilkTork *^YES! 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy's now in (should have been in the first place, but still...). Fleet looks a bit harder to do, as it's made up of fairly specific points that are probably too detailed for the lead. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How about something like - "The company used a variety of buses during their history, mainly xxxx and yyyy, and when they closed the stock was passed on to zzzzz and aaaaa." SilkTork *^YES! 17:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Done. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking details now with what sites I can find. Is this [1] a fan site? It looks like one - and if so he's probably got his info from the same source as you. Anyway, it backs up the content so far. SilkTork *^YES! 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Home page suggests it's run by one guy so would seem to fail WP:SELFPUB, which is why I didn't use it, but I agree it's quite likely he used the same sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• What is this competition with Surrey Hills Motor Services? It's mentioned but not explained, and then the matter is dropped. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought the current wording made sense, but looking again it was missing one bit. Surrey Hills also ran a route between Guildford and Peaslake in competition with Tillingbourne, but were taken over by Aldershot & District. I've added that A&D withdrew the route to explain why the competition stopped. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've dropped in a couple of cites from other book sources. I think much of what I have seen in other sources backs up what is in the article, though (whatever happens with this review) it would be worth digging a bit deeper than the one book, and looking at other books on bus services in the area. I have briefly seen in one source that George Burnett (the author of the main source) was involved with the company, and while with the company was opposed to deregulation. There's nothing of that in the article. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• "In July a new service between Guildford and the British Aerospace site at Dunsfold Aerodrome." What happened with this service - sentence is unfinished. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops... it's meant to say that the route was introduced then, and now does. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• "It proved successful was later supplemented by further services to the village." Sentence unclear. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Added more detail which should clarify things. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "acquired from preservation" Could you explain this a bit. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you could deal with the above matters, and double check yourself that all sentences do make sense. And if you could have a look in your local library for any other books on local bus services which might give additional information, or a new slant on the main source, that would be helpful. I'm just going to go over the criteria again, as I think I can tick off a few items, and then I'll put this on hold till after the Christmas period, and have a fresh look in the new year. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly I live a fair way from Tillingbourne's area of operation, and my local library in Maidenhead has nothing useful whatsoever. Perhaps Buses Magazine is the way forward - I can get access to every issue since 1974 if I try hard enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• The captions are still giving concern. They are carrying a lot of detail. The reg plates are not needed, that fine detail is not encyclopaedic - initially I thought they referred to types of buses! Also, some of the information in the captions is not in the main body, and some is giving information that is not sourced - "X307 CBT, one of a pair of Optare Excels new to Tillingbourne, which are now with Safeguard Coaches of Guildford." Where is the cite for the buses being with Safeguard, and where is it mentioned in the main body that the buses went to that company? SilkTork *^YES! 23:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Cut back some of the overly specific detail. The unsourced stuff has also been fixed for both the Safeguard and Arriva images - I found some fleet news reports on the acquisitions and added sourced info on them to the main text. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've just ticked off a few more items, so we're getting close. On hold to 5th January. Have a nice Christmas! SilkTork *^YES! 23:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pass

Yes, I think there is enough here now to pass this. There is still room for research and development, and I hope people will continue to do that, but on the whole this is a clearly written and presented article. There is enough information to give a decent overview of the company, and its history. Where I see potential for development is in putting the company into context of the bus services in the area. Anyway, well done on producing an interesting little piece! SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the praise and for providing such a detailed review. I think I can safely predict some further improvements soon! Alzarian16 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)